Finland Mystery

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
User avatar
SerbTiger
Member
Posts: 285
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 11:38
Location: Brisbane, Australia

#61

Post by SerbTiger » 26 Sep 2002, 13:23

But Serb, you forget one thing. Who has said that when peace treaty would have signed between Finland and Soviet Union Finns would have stayed in any occupied areas? Our demand was always to get stolen lands back. What happened during the war is another thing. Think about that.
Well can't you at least admit the FACT that Finland acted aggressively and was JUST as Bad as the Soviet UNION in 1940.
What don't you Finnish members understand I agree with you SU was wrong in the invasion of 1940 BUT Finns did the same bad thing in 1941 there is no difference 2 WRONGS don't make a right.

But offcourse your version is no we FINNS are peaceful people we don't kill or take foreign land, we only want to establish better borders to protect us from our subhuman neighbours. And because were not "officially" a AXIS country if we keep denying our involvement in WW2 long enough everyone will forget.

[edited by webmaster]

User avatar
Juha Hujanen
Member
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Mar 2002, 12:32
Location: Suur-Savo,Finland

#62

Post by Juha Hujanen » 26 Sep 2002, 18:12

Yeah,let's try to keep dicussion civilized and concentrate to facts.Which reminds me whe did you Leo get figures of 72% horses and 80% of pigs robbed by Finnish army?.Article in book Maailma Palaa by Mauno Kuosa says that privat property of civilians was strictly ordered to remain untouched.Cattle and horses were left to their owners.Although some cattle was gave to those with lots of children.August 41 it was ordered to give civilians from army suplies:400g of ryeflour,40g of sugar and 10g of salt/day/person.These because they were easily transported and were available.Amout of ryeflour was twise bigger than in rest of Finland and sugar and salt little higher.All availble people (civilians,troops avaible off combat and thousands of pows) were set to collect harvest but harvest was too small.Local harvest would be enough for 120g of flour/day but 3 times more flour was transported from Finland.
One reason that part of Soviet citisens was put in camps was that in Aänislinna(Petroskoi) 75% of houses were burned by retreating Soviet troops and in countryside too over half of houses were burned.There wasn't enough houses and winter was coming fast.

And for mortality rates amongs civilians.1943 mortality rate was 20.8/1000 people in East-Carelia and in Finland in 1940 it was 19.0/1000 people.Not much of difference,i would think.

Regards Juha


User avatar
Antti V
Member
Posts: 296
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:54
Location: Finland

#63

Post by Antti V » 26 Sep 2002, 18:35

As we all maybe noticed from this flame war, these wars between Finland and Soviet Union are sensitive things for Finns. In Finland those wars does have very important part in our history. You can see that in our everyday life, as mentioned in earlier postings (Military graves in good condition etc.). And let´s not forget the loss of Karelia and resettling operation of 400.000 person which wasn´t any little thing in country with population of 4 million.

It also makes Finns boiling easily if someone says things what are possible to connect to Nazi-Germany, but aren´t 'valid' with Finland like claiming that country was nazistic or country was ruled by dictatur, even Finland was on 'Evil side' (This 'Evil side' thing means here that here is no just black and white, here is also gray zone between those two colour, and Finland was in that gray zone, under gravity of Black Hole but also partly in sun during WW2, IMHO 8) ).

It´s good to remember that Finland´s political situation was very fast changing during WW2 toward other countries:
- During Winter War (30th November 1939-13th March 1940) Germany was hostile and relations were not that good, Western Allies (Great Britain, France, USA and even Italy) supported us selling or giving arms to Finland during its battle against SU. Western Allies were Finland´s best friends in that time.
- Finland had good relations to Western Allies until 1941, and when relations to Germany went warmer in autumn 1940-spring 1941 because of the threat of SU what Finns felt (especially after incident 'Kaleva': unarmed passenger plane Kaleva was shot down by Red Air Force fighter over Gulf Of Finland), Western allies went cold.
- 1941-1944 (known as Continuation War (26.6.1941 - 4/5.9.1944), as direct connect to Winter War) Western Allies & SU were enemies (except USA) and Germany supported Finland. So we can say that Nazi-Germany and USA were Finland´s best friends. Sounds impossible but so it was.
- In 1944-1945 (known as war of Lappland between 15.9.1944 - 25.4.1945) Finland was in war with Nazi-Germany, because it was best choise to do to save independence. If Finns don´t send Germans away from Finland, Red Army will do it for Finns (and occupy land too, what Finns feared more than anything else and therefore went to war against Nazi-Germany, former brother-in-arms.)

This all above is thing what should always remember when arguing what Finland was or did during WW2, IMO. :D


I hope you don´t have hard feelings toward Finns, SerbTiger? I apologize if I have said something what hurts you.
I hope you do now understand after this all bit better why we did attack toward you and Leo with harsh words and protected the honour of Miss Finland (as we do call our country) :lol: .

Maybe you can accept this gigantic pint of virtual beer as sign of friendship, SerbTiger? Image

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

#64

Post by Mark V » 26 Sep 2002, 23:50

Very good summary Antti V.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

#65

Post by LeoAU » 27 Sep 2002, 02:49

And by posting this I too want to finish my participation in this thread. Because it comes to the point where some of my arguments are ignored, and to keep it going I would have to repeat them and whatever I will say will not be taken seriously simply because Finland was right and could not have done anything bad.
That reminds me very much of the communist education system when they tried to bring us up in the way that USSR was a peaceful country, and all USSR did was right and good. Well, they failed, I know USSR was just a powerful country and would use this power whenever and wherever needed. But Finnish education system obviously succeded. :mrgreen:

It is a very difficult part of WW2 to understand. Well, as I stated before here or in some other forums, Winter war isn't concidered to be a part of WW2 by many historians. It was a war between just two countries. And Continuation war had a slightly different nature - well, continuation of the first one.
It wasn't fear and right for USSR to attack Finland in 39. I admit that. If Finland cooperated with USSR maybe it would've stayed independant and out of the war and without loss of land. We never know.
In 41 it was Finland who was an agressor. It grabbed(robbed) Soviet lands, it participated in the attack against USSR together with Germany and axis, and took its part (call it minimal or insignificant) in the siege of Leningrad. This time it was more than a war between two countries, unlike Winter war. And for that it payed with reparations.
Yes, you can stay the way you are - hate Russia, try to humiliate it in these forums, 'wait' for the right moment to get the lands back - but it would be no different to 41 position - agression. And you would lose again.

I don't like when people knowing little to nothing about Russian history or Russians try to downgrade them, insult them. Chauvinism is bad is Finninsh chauvinism is no better. And I see a clear demonstration of this in this forum.
Just a thought, please don't start arguing with this. Ok, lets assume in 39 Stalin wanted to occupy Finland. He failed, Finland lost land but stayed independant. In 41 Finns wanted their lands back, they failed. They lost even more lands, yet it is Soviets that 'lost' twice. That is not fair.
Any way. If there is no major objectives I will try to retire from this thread.
I disagree with the way some people talked about Soviets and Russians in this forum but I do thank participants for keeping it civil and clean.
have a good weekend

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#66

Post by Harri » 27 Sep 2002, 11:43

I agree, Antti said it well. Shall we offer virtual beer (or is there any Vodka left?) to Leo too? Here you are...

Well, anyway I have to answer to Leo.
LeoAU wrote:And by posting this I too want to finish my participation in this thread. Because it comes to the point where some of my arguments are ignored, and to keep it going I would have to repeat them and whatever I will say will not be taken seriously simply because Finland was right and could not have done anything bad.
Have you ever thought, Leo, that maybe some of your arguments are not quite true or are biased? I admit that there are always two sides in a coin but I consider Finnish sources much more reliable than Soviet sources. There are so many examples. Even the recent mutual research has proved and supported Finnish data and facts. We will see, but I believe that also in Russia many past Soviet myths will change in history books.
LeoAU wrote:That reminds me very much of the communist education system when they tried to bring us up in the way that USSR was a peaceful country, and all USSR did was right and good. Well, they failed, I know USSR was just a powerful country and would use this power whenever and wherever needed. But Finnish education system obviously succeded.
Power is a bad thing in wrong hands and Stalin used that power. But he was not Russian. It is true that all good was not only in USSR but all bad was neither in Finland.

Our education system meets any standards to be objective enough. Maybe you would be surprised if you saw what is/was said in Finnish history books. I never saw there any fundamental nationalistic or revisionistic, just pure facts. I'd say that our society succeeded better because we have also room for (self-)critisism and objectivity.
LeoAU wrote:It is a very difficult part of WW2 to understand. Well, as I stated before here or in some other forums, Winter war isn't concidered to be a part of WW2 by many historians. It was a war between just two countries. And Continuation war had a slightly different nature - well, continuation of the first one.
It does not matter anything if Winter War was part of WW II or not. The point is anyway that it was an essential part in the chain of battles or independent wars which eventually led to the world war. There were many other battles too in the 1930's which are not counted either being part of WW II. If we say WW II started on 1.9.1939 then Winter War was part of it.

I think the names Winter War and Continuation War are truthful and neutral enough. Because Great Patriotic War was also against Finns you see that "our" Contination War can't be separated from war against Germany and Axis nations. We separate these wars. That's the difference.
LeoAU wrote:It wasn't fear and right for USSR to attack Finland in 39. I admit that. If Finland cooperated with USSR maybe it would've stayed independant and out of the war and without loss of land. We never know.
In 41 it was Finland who was an agressor. It grabbed(robbed) Soviet lands, it participated in the attack against USSR together with Germany and axis, and took its part (call it minimal or insignificant) in the siege of Leningrad. This time it was more than a war between two countries, unlike Winter war. And for that it payed with reparations.
We tried our best but co-operation with Stalin and Molotov wasn't easy. Our best diplomat J. K. Paasikivi, who was strangely very respected by Soviets, worked really hard in Moscow to keep the balance. I suggest you should read his diaries which are published at least in Swedish and English. Then you'd realize many things much better from our point of view.

We stayed independent all the time but were under hard pressure. If you don't know that pressure continued almost until the end of Soviet Union. We knew what was the goal of USSR already in 1938 when the first mutual negotiations took place. Soviet diplomat called Yartsev set the first demands then. It is not fair to state that our lost lands would be some kind of reparation because we would most likely lost these territories or our whole independence anyway. We know it because that happened to Baltic States gradually in 1939 and 1940.
LeoAU wrote:Yes, you can stay the way you are - hate Russia, try to humiliate it in these forums, 'wait' for the right moment to get the lands back - but it would be no different to 41 position - agression. And you would lose again.
I wouldn't say hate, dislike is a better word. This is partly because some of our values are not the same. We have seen this during this - hopefully gone - argue too. Partly it is due to our different religions (atheism is a kind of religion too) but argues between Orthodox Church of Finland and Russia indicate that there is something else too.

"Humiliate"? What humiliation there has been?

According to the diaries of President U. K. Kekkonen he tried to get at least part of Finnish Karelia and Viipuri back in the 1960's but he failed because men changed in Moscow and all had to be started from the very beginnig again.
LeoAU wrote:I don't like when people knowing little to nothing about Russian history or Russians try to downgrade them, insult them. Chauvinism is bad is Finninsh chauvinism is no better. And I see a clear demonstration of this in this forum.
I don't like either when someone who knows little about Finnish history of Finns try to downgrade or insult us. I think we Finns know Russian history much better than most people in the world. We have seen all next to Russia/Soviet Union. Believe me or not but there is no "Finnish Chauvinism" - but there is Russian Chauvinism.
LeoAU wrote:Just a thought, please don't start arguing with this. Ok, lets assume in 39 Stalin wanted to occupy Finland. He failed, Finland lost land but stayed independant. In 41 Finns wanted their lands back, they failed. They lost even more lands, yet it is Soviets that 'lost' twice. That is not fair.
I don't argue, I'm calm as always. That is not the whole truth in this case like I have said earlier. Who gave Soviet Union that right to take our lands in 1940 and 1944? USA, Britain or Germany? I think it was Stalin all alone. He was very cunning in twisting history and using lies. All just fit perfectly to his plans.

Leo, winning a war does not mean you get some land. Winning a war means that you achieve your original aims. The aim of Soviet Union was to conquer Finland (or make it Soviet Finland). That plan failed twice. Of course we can say that Soviet Union wan these wars but we Finns really feel/felt that we are/were actually winners too. According to novel Unknow Soldier by V. Linna: "Great and mighty Soviet Union wan but small and persistent Finland came second." I think that's well said.
LeoAU wrote:Any way. If there is no major objectives I will try to retire from this thread.
I disagree with the way some people talked about Soviets and Russians in this forum but I do thank participants for keeping it civil and clean.
have a good weekend
OK. I apology if there was such talk. Anyway much of it was my typical sarcasm. I have always tried to keep these discussions clean and civilized.

Thanks, same to you. Well, summer cottage calls...

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

#67

Post by LeoAU » 30 Sep 2002, 02:38

Just one thought...
Harri wrote:
Leo, winning a war does not mean you get some land. Winning a war means that you achieve your original aims.

Thanks God you understand this now! Before you said that looking at Soviet vs Finnish losses, Soviets lost both wars and I tried to prove that losses are not how you measure a defeat vs victory. Well done Harri!
The aim of Soviet Union was to conquer Finland (or make it Soviet Finland). That plan failed twice.
The Finnish plan in 41 was to get your lands back. You failed, didn't you? So, you lost. Why is it that hard to admit?
According to novel Unknow Soldier by V. Linna: "Great and mighty Soviet Union wan but small and persistent Finland came second." I think that's well said.
I will quote you on this one next time I argue about Winter/Continuation wars.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#68

Post by Harri » 30 Sep 2002, 10:17

LeoAU wrote:Thanks God you understand this now! Before you said that looking at Soviet vs Finnish losses, Soviets lost both wars and I tried to prove that losses are not how you measure a defeat vs victory. Well done Harri!
I haven't change my opinions, Leo. You can use many ways of "measuring victories". For the small country like Finland they are not the same than for a large country like Soviet Union. The most important way is to see how the aims of war (usually laid down before the war) came true.

In 1939 the aim of Finland was to stay free and independent with the minimum losses of men and lands. Soviet aim was to conquer Finland. Who was the winner in this war in 1940? Both lost.

In 1941 Finnish aim was to conquer lost lands back. We did that but lost these in 1944. So, we failed in this one. In 1941 Soviet aim was to defend "its" territories which failed (until Finns stopped advancing). In 1944 Soviet aim was again to conquer Finland and to get Finland out from the war. The latter one succeded, the first one didn't. New aim of Finland laid down during the war was again to stay free and independent with the minimum losses of men and lands. Who wan this war then? That was actually a stalemate too in 1944 because the borders of 1940 remained almost the same (+ Petsamo, - Hanko).
LeoAU wrote:The Finnish plan in 41 was to get your lands back. You failed, didn't you? So, you lost. Why is it that hard to admit?
"Hard to admit"? That plan failed like I said earlier.
LeoAU wrote:I will quote you on this one next time I argue about Winter/Continuation wars.
Well, of course you can use this quote although my translation may not be quite accurate. "Unknown Soldier" was the book Soviet Union tried to forbid in Finland when it was published in the 1950's. I recommend to read it because it is the basic novel about the Finns in Continuation War.

Why should we argue? If real facts are used that's the same on both sides, isn't it? Like in every cases there maybe several opinions but only one truth. Until today there have been two truths: Finnish and Soviet one. Now I'm waiting for the Russian truth, which will be different from the Soviet one and I think much closer to the Finnish one.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

#69

Post by LeoAU » 01 Oct 2002, 02:41

Harri wrote: In 1941 Finnish aim was to conquer lost lands back. We did that but lost these in 1944.
In 41 you temporary reoccupied the lands, which is not a victory in any sence. Temporary military success. You managed to to conquer them, but failed to hold them.
So, we failed in this one. In 1941 Soviet aim was to defend "its" territories which failed (until Finns stopped advancing).
No, Soviets did defend they lands, Leningrad didn't fall - that was the most important bit. And some 3 years later Soviets got all of their lands back.

In 1944 Soviet aim was again to conquer Finland and to get Finland out from the war. The latter one succeded, the first one didn't.
Harri, come on! You using your imagination too much. Soviets' objective was to kick Finland out of the war and get it to fight against Germany, which was achieved. If Finland was occupied, that would've been a bonus, but THE objective was to neutralise another Germany's ally, that's all.
See, it was all about defeating Germany, that's all.
It wasn't like - yeah, lets defeat Germany, but what we really need - to occupy Finland. Harri, Soviets faced and defeated an army of a size of the whole Finland's population.
But hey, enough arguing, if it makes you feel good, yes Harri, Soviets with their 12 mln strong army, 20,000 planes and roughly the same amount of tanks, putting aside Germany and the rest of axis, simply could not overcome the resistance of Finnish army.
:mrgreen: Which by ityself signifies that USSR lost WW2. Since it was ALL about Finland. And Finland won WW2 (technically it is true).

Just a little analogy. When Soviets attacked Japan in 45, their goal was to occupy Japan or just make her capitulate and end that bloody war? Probably it was an occupation, and since Soviets got just some land, not the whole Japan, they lost - yes Harri? Am I learning quickly enough?
:mrgreen: :wink:
New aim of Finland laid down during the war was again to stay free and independent with the minimum losses of men and lands. Who wan this war then?
Don't fantasise. Finland could've stayed independant and neutral without joining in together with Germany. But you wanted the lands. You lost. You entered the war to get them back. You did not succeed, please don't come up with new objectives - we wanted to stay free and independant.
"Hard to admit"? That plan failed like I said earlier.
Well, then what the hell are we arguing about? Finland lost, thank you.
Now I'm waiting for the Russian truth, which will be different from the Soviet one and I think much closer to the Finnish one.
Well, I don't think you do. Or I don't think you will like it. See, more and more sources becoming available, which are quite different from all that cold war era stuff on which you were brought up.
There is less and less stupid dumb Soviets, brutal Stalin with tens of millions victims etc, monster communists and comisars. And there is no 1 million Soviet losses in Winter war etc. Closer to Finnish one? With 1 billion Soviet soldiers kiiled? :lol: I don't think so.
I really don't think you would like it.

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:36
Location: Finland

#70

Post by Tiwaz » 01 Oct 2002, 08:28

"Lainaus:
New aim of Finland laid down during the war was again to stay free and independent with the minimum losses of men and lands. Who wan this war then?
Don't fantasise. Finland could've stayed independant and neutral without joining in together with Germany. But you wanted the lands. You lost. You entered the war to get them back. You did not succeed, please don't come up with new objectives - we wanted to stay free and independant. "

Please, tell me how that would have been possible in your fantasy world.

By giving Soviets all those things they demanded before Winter War?

Yeah, that strategy really worked for Baltic states.

By accepting after Winter War that you were going to starve since you lost 10% from your agricultural area to country ran by a madman? That is against mentality of every living creature.
Naturally this was during WW so everyone was fighting and you were cut off from most of the world.

Now I know, they should have asked help from this neighbouring clearly hostile country. I wonder why that can't be seen as a solution... Specially since it would have very likely made Finland to end up like Baltic states again.


Only possible route for Finland out of that mess was to join up with Germany.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#71

Post by Harri » 01 Oct 2002, 10:21

Again I too agree with Tiwaz.
LeoAU wrote:In 41 you temporary reoccupied the lands, which is not a victory in any sence. Temporary military success. You managed to to conquer them, but failed to hold them.
Using that same logic USSR lost Winter War...?
LeoAU wrote:No, Soviets did defend they lands, Leningrad didn't fall - that was the most important bit. And some 3 years later Soviets got all of their lands back.
Finland didn't attack Leningrad. It was copletely German operation. Fortunately you again stole our lands...
LeoAU wrote:Harri, come on! You using your imagination too much. Soviets' objective was to kick Finland out of the war and get it to fight against Germany, which was achieved. If Finland was occupied, that would've been a bonus, but THE objective was to neutralise another Germany's ally, that's all.
Soviet objectives were know already during the war. The main objective was to conquer Finland. We KNEW that and you should understand that too.
LeoAU wrote:See, it was all about defeating Germany, that's all.
It wasn't like - yeah, lets defeat Germany, but what we really need - to occupy Finland. Harri, Soviets faced and defeated an army of a size of the whole Finland's population.
I agree. But Finland was supposed to be "easy victim".
LeoAU wrote:But hey, enough arguing, if it makes you feel good, yes Harri, Soviets with their 12 mln strong army, 20,000 planes and roughly the same amount of tanks, putting aside Germany and the rest of axis, simply could not overcome the resistance of Finnish army.
That was amazing. But it happened too many times to be just an accident. Maybe Red Army was busy elsewhere too, but that's war.
LeoAU wrote:Which by ityself signifies that USSR lost WW2. Since it was ALL about Finland. And Finland won WW2 (technically it is true).
Stop playing with me, Leo. You did try to occupy Finland but failed.
LeoAU wrote:Just a little analogy. When Soviets attacked Japan in 45, their goal was to occupy Japan or just make her capitulate and end that bloody war? Probably it was an occupation, and since Soviets got just some land, not the whole Japan, they lost - yes Harri? Am I learning quickly enough?
I don't see there any analogy: japan was alredy beaten, Finland wasn't. War with Finland ended more than a month later than Finnish troops had stopped Soviet attacks everywhere. Finnish Army was still in good condition.
LeoAU wrote:Don't fantasise. Finland could've stayed independant and neutral without joining in together with Germany. But you wanted the lands. You lost. You entered the war to get them back. You did not succeed, please don't come up with new objectives - we wanted to stay free and independant.
That's not true. If Germany had attacked Finland then Soviet troops would have attacked too and vice versa. We entered the war to save ourselves. That is maybe not very important for bigger nations but for small ones it's always a matter of staying alive.

Russians and Soviet people had never been really free. Finns have been free long enough to know what does it mean. It is the most important thing a nation or a man has. Even worth war. You can't understand that, can you?
LeoAU wrote:Well, then what the hell are we arguing about? Finland lost, thank you.
That's what I've all the time asked: why are we arguing? :lol:
LeoAU wrote:Well, I don't think you do. Or I don't think you will like it. See, more and more sources becoming available, which are quite different from all that cold war era stuff on which you were brought up.
There is less and less stupid dumb Soviets, brutal Stalin with tens of millions victims etc, monster communists and comisars. And there is no 1 million Soviet losses in Winter war etc. Closer to Finnish one? With 1 billion Soviet soldiers kiiled? :lol: I don't think so.
I really don't think you would like it.
As far as I have seen that Finnish point of views have been supported. That piece of knowledge you mentioned was not from Finnish sources. Why should we lie? We didn't meet any embarrassing losses. Everyone can check freely our sources: all are available for anyone who is interested in and all war diaries of units are there too. Great lies were maybe possible in USSR but they have never been possible in Finland.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 00:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

#72

Post by LeoAU » 02 Oct 2002, 02:28

Tiwaz wrote: Don't fantasise. Finland could've stayed independant and neutral without joining in together with Germany.
Please, tell me how that would have been possible in your fantasy world.
Exactly the same way as Turkey or Spain stayed neutral. Mind you, their geographical location is much more vital than Finland's. Same as Switzerland or Portugal, or your neughbour stayed neutral.
By giving Soviets all those things they demanded before Winter War?
Soviets already got what they wanted IN the Winter war.
Yeah, that strategy really worked for Baltic states.
How the fate of Baltic states is connected with Finland's decision to attack USSR in 41?
Naturally this was during WW so everyone was fighting and you were cut off from most of the world.
Exactly. And that was what Finland did, and there is no need to take the high moral ground. The sooner you realise that no country ever did everything right the sooner you will get the real picture.

You wanted your lands back, so yes:
Tiwaz wrote: Only possible route for Finland out of that mess was to join up with Germany.

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:36
Location: Finland

#73

Post by Tiwaz » 02 Oct 2002, 07:40

Leo, looks like you read other posts in method where you read only parts that suit you. After Winter War there was NO way for Finland to remain neutral. I thought I already pointed it out, Finland at that time required outside help for it's population to survive thanks to lost lands and other damage from the war.

Comparing situation of Finland to that of Switzerland, Spain, Sweden and others shows your lack of understanding the situation.


Fate of the Baltic states, it's pretty clearly linked to Finland. They received similar demands from Soviets and agreed to them. Somewhat soon after that they found themselves occupied by Soviet army. This happened in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Seeing a pattern here? Make demands, get your troops inside the border and take control.

In case of Finland this was a failure since we didn't agree to give in to demands. And after charade of Soviet army getting repeatedly kicked around by smaller and poorly equipped enemy it should have been clear that there was no easy way to take Finland. After army would break up, and yes I can admit that it would have happened if hostilities wouldn't have been stopped but it wouldn't have been easy, there would have been quite literally endless forests where Finnish guerillas had opportunity to hide and survive.
Russians knew this since it has been done before, Finns have long history in using heavy forests of their native soil to their advantage.

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

#74

Post by Marcus » 18 Aug 2004, 20:06

This thread has been cleaned up and unlocked on the request of one of the members, I hope the tone of the discussions in this thread will be a lot better this time around.

/Marcus

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

#75

Post by John T » 18 Aug 2004, 21:07

I suggest that before posting on this thread please read the thread
"Finnish wargoals in the Continuation War"
It is civilised, and contains a lot of good information.

Cheers
/John T.

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”